Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions progress, city accountability for delayed Silverback Landing development
Summary
A resident told the commission that the Silverback Landing development, approved in 2018, has fallen far behind the developer's timeline; city staff said the developer repaid the city's loan, 23 homes are occupied, reimbursements are tied to completed phase work and open code-enforcement cases remain.
During public comment at the Pittsburg City Commission meeting on May 27, resident Christie Bittner urged commissioners to explain why the Silverback Landing housing development has not progressed as promised since its 2018 approval.
Bittner told the commission the developer had promised 50 to 60 homes within three to five years after approval; as of May 2025, she said only 23 homes had been built. She asked for the total taxpayer dollars invested in the project and noted a $2 million capital-outlay line item in the city's plan for a redesign of Hampton Road. "What is the total taxpayer dollars on this project? ... Where is the accountability to the citizens of Pittsburg?" she asked.
City staff responded that the city built Silverback Way, the road serving the existing 23 homes, and that the developer repaid a loan to the city a couple of years ago. Staff said the developer has sold another lot and is building houses at a slow, largely custom pace — "one or two at a time" — and that reimbursements the city offered are disbursed from property-tax revenue when the developer completes the phase-1 work; because phase 1 is unfinished, the payment has not been dispensed. Staff described phase 1 as the 50-to-60-home segment Bittner referenced, but also noted the development plat submitted earlier had 40 lots, creating some inconsistency in how the numbers have been described.
Officials acknowledged residents' frustrations and said the city has open code-enforcement cases and is working with the developer on outstanding issues. Staff told commissioners they were being lenient on some maintenance enforcement due to weather but are pursuing outstanding cases. One commissioner noted the city has no outstanding loan balance from the developer.
The exchange included several clarifications from staff about the reimbursement mechanism and the city's role: the city said it had no money currently tied up in the project (the developer repaid the loan), that the city's leverage to require completion is limited to the terms of the incentive agreement (reimbursement tied to completed work), and that code-enforcement cases remain open and are being addressed.
No formal action related to Silverback Landing was taken at the meeting; the item was raised during public comment and followed by staff responses and commissioner questions.
